Hierarchy in art

To start off with, let's define art so that we have a common starting point.

In general, art is something that makes our senses take notice and evoke an emotional response in us.  Art is generally skillfully and creatively done so that the end result often impresses us as beautiful in a way we may not have thought of before.

 

I proposed this general definition of art without referene to any medium so that we can discuss how various forms of art may compare with each other and ultimately,  how video games fit in as an art form.  This topic was proposed by Paolo who felt strongly that video games as an art form is no lesser than any other form such as movies.

 

The discussion group immediately took issue with my definition.  Some think that we should not exclude ugly art as beauty is a subjective judgment and therefore anything that evokes an emotional response is art.

 

Mano also suggest that in order to define something as art, we must be able to say others are not art.  If everything is art,  then nothing is.

 

Dan wonders if a beautiful piece of drift wood can be art as no one made it and it is a result of the randomness of nature.  This ties in with those who think that art needs to be created by some one with intention.  So God created the driftwood and believers can consider the driftwood as art but athiests are missing out on a lot of naturally created art but only see them as beautiful objects???

 

What if the spectator interprets the art differently than what the creater had in mind?

 

Bob suggested that art is a fuzzy set which means that there are some things that we know definitely as art but there are other items that are less certain as we drift towards the fuzzy boundaries of what is or is not art.  Therefore we can cite examples of art and not art but there is a lot of grey in between.

 

One of the other properties of art suggested by some is that it stands the test of time.  Paolo felt strongly that this is not a legitimate measure.  Are classical music really better or are we culturally influenced from birth that this is "good" music?  Paolo wonders if Shakespear would be as outstanding in our esteem if we were not all exposed to it as part of most school programs.  Is it the exposure that formed our taste or is Shakespear truly a stand out on its own?

 

Bruce cites the example of Blake as a poet who was ahead of his time and only later did the population caught up with him and appreciate him.  This seems to imply that our taste changes like fashion.  We can be slightly ahead of the crowd and be fashionable but too far ahead and we risk being an outcast.

 

Paolo said that he thought of the topic because someone who agreed with him about a certain video game being a beautiful art piece wondered why it is not made into a movie.  To Paolo, the video game is a worthy art form on its own and movies are not any better art form.

 

What occured to me though is that video games are primarily something to engage the player.  The player takes on a role and interact with the game and other players.  This changes the traditional notion of art as something that we experience through seeing, hearing, or combination of both.

 

The player involvement in the game changed the nature of th experience to something more akin to sports. 

 

We marvel at some of the top soccer and hockey players on how they can come up with new moves and strategies to outplay their opponents.  Yet even the sport spectator do not consider these great moves as art even though it engages the spectator and the player to love the sport.

 

Is sport not an art form if it evokes such emotions out of sport fans and they decribe the moves as a thing of beauty?  Seems to fit the definition perfectly.

 

My thinking is that we are simply bounded by tradition of what art is without ever trying to define it properly.

 

If we consider aspects of sport and games (is creative chess move an art?) as art, then video games as an art form both in the creation and playing will be more natural to us.

Cognitive component to love

Is love purely emotional or is there a cognitive and rational part?

Last night we discuss this diverse topic.

In the initial stages of meeting a mate, can we rationally go down a checklist, narrow our choices, find the ideal candidate, and then develop the emotional attachment?  Or is it more like "falling in love", then do a rational check (or justification!)

As a point of comparison, Mano thinks that we are different from other animals in that we are aware of the future and the past and that we also love while other animals don't.

Do animals love?  RJ said that from his rancher experience,  wolves are very loyal to their mates, do not have sex with wolves other than their partners, and do not switch social packs.  Thus the "lone wolf" label to describe those wolves who do not join other social packs after their mates have died.  Interestingly enough, RJ thinks that dogs, who came from wolves, are promiscuous because humans encouraged it to be so that the humans can breed the strains that humans want.

Gerald thinks that as a baby,  we were initially only aware of the present,  as we grow, we become aware of the past and the future.  Together with language which allow us to describe our situation,  we are able to look at ourselves and have introspection. Love becomes richer and more complex than just an attraction of the sexes and the longer relationship also deeper meaning than just being part of a social pact.

We also acknowledge the significance of first impressions on emotions and attractions.  How do we form these fast first impressions?  Are they accurate and can we rely on them?

Since first impressions are "intuitive", "subconscious", it is difficult to analyse.  One possibility is that our past experience creates standard categories for us to make sense of life and the people we meet.  When we meet someone for the first time,  we "intuitively" slot this stranger to someone we know so that we can quickly assess the situation.  By this explanation, first impressions will depend on our life experience, if we have been bitten by a dog before,  our first impression of a dog will be quite different than someone who had experienced dogs as loving pets.

Our conceptions of the person we are trying to love may also be different than the person.  We can be loving our conception of our intended mates only to find out later that they are not as we think they are.  We had fallen in love with what we want, not what we had.

We also discussed "matured love" as referenced from Erich Fromm. It described a relationship that is not about the self but more about the pleasure arising from giving of the self to the other. http://www.philosophynow.org/issue85/Is_Love_An_Art

But not all giving relationships are necessarily healthy.  Respect and appreciation from the receiver seems a necessary part of a mature loving relationship versus a dependent relationship where the giving is taken for granted.

Can we love everyone versus just our partner, our family, our friends, and immediate circles around us?  Some said yes while others disagree.  Here, it is the meaning of the word love that is in question.  Do we mean love to be a giving and kind attitude that we hold or is it an intimate emotional relationship we have with some one.  We cannot have both meanings in the same word.

What about love with multiple partners?  Why is it that parents can have multiple children and love them all but our society frowns on multi-partner life styles such as the poly-amorous? If you love someone and want the best for them, would it not include more people that they like to be with as well?

My own thinking here is that intimacy is a time consuming and passionate issue,  multiple partners simply dilutes this intimacy and time constraints stops the theoretical possibility of having everything there is to be had. There just isn't the engagement and emotional sharing in a multi partnership arrangement as there is with a monogamous one.